My main problem with abortion however is the undercurrent of ableism and of paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family that underlay it. It's supporters are basically saying that 1.) People like me who have genetic disorders shouldn't exist and 2.) That a child only exists for the benefit of the parents, rather than for their own benefit or to string along the ponzi scheme that is civilization until we can find a way to stabilize it by putting a stop to death.

The argument that fetuses are not babies is of course made all the time. The "life begins at conception" and such ridiculousness is the anti-choice camp's counter to this argument. There will never be any successful attempt to convince them that fetuses are not babies, because anything that is sure to become a thing is as good as having become it already, at least whenever a person is inclined to believe that, which they are in this case. As far as any anti-choice person's ability to reason, there is no meaningful distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby. Even if physically they are as different as an elephant is from a ant, there is no difference morally, and that's all that matters.

Focusing the argument on the bodily autonomy of women, logically, is all that is left to the pro-choice arguer. It's unfortunate that this is one of the many, many exceptions to the conservative's crusade for "less government interference", but it is what it is. We are effectively faced with a situation where half of the country wants to rob women of their own bodily autonomy. Making it a question of bodily autonomy may not be the most effective way to settle the argument, but it's better than trying to drive some impossible wedge between "baby" and "fetus", which has been tried and proven to be completely useless.

Of course, the debate over abortion is not actually a debate over abortion. If saving lives was really the aim of anti-choice "activists", they wouldn't condemn all manner of not-fetuses to death at the slightest provocation in other areas. Their wailing over "dead babies" is just a charade they use because people are easily swayed by the idea of violence against defenseless children. There are many proven ways to materially decrease the rates of both abortion and of unwanted or underage pregnancy in general -- and if these people actually cared about eliminating abortion, they would champion these methods instead of simply calling for prohibition and punishment of abortion. But they don't like those methods, because while they are effective, they strike at the real motives behind the anti-choice crusade: they empower women, rather than constrain them to obedience and "modesty".

So I have to disagree with your assessment that the reason the abortion debate rages on is because the defenders of women's choice are doing it wrong. It rages on because there are theocratic monsters among us who are allowed to push their oppressive agenda as some kind of antidote to all the evils of the modern, liberated world. And as long as they exist, they will find ways to hate anyone who is too free for their liking, no matter what arguments are used against them.

So, we've aired the paranoid way pro-choice sees pro-life, so now let me give you a glimpse of the - perhaps equally paranoid, I don't know) way they pro-life sees pro-choice.

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse. Imagine, if you will, this were a paralell universe where we were reptiles and the gestation took place completely outside of you, without even any incubation needed or possible, you'd find some other excuse for why it's ok to smash eggs. You simply don't want to take responsibility, which is something I emphathize with, but I can't support your methods. Instead, why not seek out one of the many gay couples clamoring to take responsibility for you

EDIT:In fact, forget reptiles, you'd find some excuse even if we were amphibians or fish

I dream of the day when you finally STFU. I know it's never, ever coming, yet I dream.

A baby being used by outside parties as punishment for sex A) don't care about the wellbeing of children, who are often treated badly by parents who don't want them, B) have some fucked up ideas about families, and C) exhibit symptoms of believing that their opinions about other people's lifestyles are not just valid but objectively true.

Go fuck yourself, PDS.

Logged

If someone does the “Fine, you’re right, I’m clearly a terrible person, I’m Satan, I’m the worst person alive, I should just die” thing in response to criticism of their harmful behavior, they are trying to manipulate people and flip the situation around so that they look like a victim.

As a neuroscientist I have to disagree with the perception that anyone is doing mathematical modeling of cognitive intelligence, yet; intelligence as an economist defines it, yes, but economists are worlds away from actual cognition.

Although it is outside the purview of this organization to offer personal advice, we can say -- without assuming any liability -- that previous experience indicates (and recent market studies corroborate) that given the present condition of the marketplace, continuing with your present course of action is likely to result in substantial in

We do not live in a world where abortions happen absent a pregnancy. We do not live in a world where pregnancy is not an imposition upon the body of a living human person. Get your head out of your own colon.

Nailed it.

Logged

If someone does the “Fine, you’re right, I’m clearly a terrible person, I’m Satan, I’m the worst person alive, I should just die” thing in response to criticism of their harmful behavior, they are trying to manipulate people and flip the situation around so that they look like a victim.

As a neuroscientist I have to disagree with the perception that anyone is doing mathematical modeling of cognitive intelligence, yet; intelligence as an economist defines it, yes, but economists are worlds away from actual cognition.

Although it is outside the purview of this organization to offer personal advice, we can say -- without assuming any liability -- that previous experience indicates (and recent market studies corroborate) that given the present condition of the marketplace, continuing with your present course of action is likely to result in substantial in

While almost all of what PDS said was a waste of brain processing power and time, I did find the proposal to leave the baby in-tact during termination of the pregnancy to be interesting.

While it's not ideal in many cases, as often-times, the abortion might be done to keep the baby from living a bad life because the the parents know they can't provide for it, it does satisfy the "what about the 'bodily integrity' of the baby?" question. Leaving the baby in-tact would obviously lead to more kids in the adoption system, which, as we all know, is awful. But, I could see baby bodily integrity - Non-lethal abortion procedure - being an argument used by the pro-lifers in the future (If they haven't used that argument already. I apologize if I'm missing updated information on the subject. I'm brand new to the abortion debate from the legal perspective.).

Not to mention, I think leaving it in-tact makes the procedure itself vastly different, and more complicated/dangerous/damaging, since the body isn't ready for birth during the time of the abortion.

Just my thoughts.

Logged

Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

While almost all of what PDS said was a waste of brain processing power and time, I did find the proposal to leave the baby in-tact during termination of the pregnancy to be interesting.

While it's not ideal in many cases, as often-times, the abortion might be done to keep the baby from living a bad life because the the parents know they can't provide for it, it does satisfy the "what about the 'bodily integrity' of the baby?" question. Leaving the baby in-tact would obviously lead to more kids in the adoption system, which, as we all know, is awful. But, I could see baby bodily integrity - Non-lethal abortion procedure - being an argument used by the pro-lifers in the future (If they haven't used that argument already. I apologize if I'm missing updated information on the subject. I'm brand new to the abortion debate from the legal perspective.).

Not to mention, I think leaving it in-tact makes the procedure itself vastly different, and more complicated/dangerous/damaging, since the body isn't ready for birth during the time of the abortion.

Just my thoughts.

The vast majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks.

Not sure how the fuck you'd keep a 12 week old fetus going.

Logged

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

While almost all of what PDS said was a waste of brain processing power and time, I did find the proposal to leave the baby in-tact during termination of the pregnancy to be interesting.

While it's not ideal in many cases, as often-times, the abortion might be done to keep the baby from living a bad life because the the parents know they can't provide for it, it does satisfy the "what about the 'bodily integrity' of the baby?" question. Leaving the baby in-tact would obviously lead to more kids in the adoption system, which, as we all know, is awful. But, I could see baby bodily integrity - Non-lethal abortion procedure - being an argument used by the pro-lifers in the future (If they haven't used that argument already. I apologize if I'm missing updated information on the subject. I'm brand new to the abortion debate from the legal perspective.).

Not to mention, I think leaving it in-tact makes the procedure itself vastly different, and more complicated/dangerous/damaging, since the body isn't ready for birth during the time of the abortion.

Just my thoughts.

The procedure which extracts an intact fetus is only used in late-term abortions, which are almost universally abortions of a wanted fetus because the fetus was abnormal and unviable. While the terminology may imply that the mother is a passive recipient of this process, in reality it is usually very similar to induced labor; she experiences not only the pain of labor and delivery, but also additional pain due to the fact that the labor must essentially be forced, as her body isn't ready to give birth, and also the nightmarish emotional pain of knowing that the fetus is dead. There are many medical reasons that this process is safer for the mother than foregoing the labor and delivery through surgical removal, and there is also an important emotional reason, which is that it allows the grieving would-be parents to see and hold the dead fetus, which is often considered to help with the grief process.

Logged

“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”

While almost all of what PDS said was a waste of brain processing power and time, I did find the proposal to leave the baby in-tact during termination of the pregnancy to be interesting.

While it's not ideal in many cases, as often-times, the abortion might be done to keep the baby from living a bad life because the the parents know they can't provide for it, it does satisfy the "what about the 'bodily integrity' of the baby?" question. Leaving the baby in-tact would obviously lead to more kids in the adoption system, which, as we all know, is awful. But, I could see baby bodily integrity - Non-lethal abortion procedure - being an argument used by the pro-lifers in the future (If they haven't used that argument already. I apologize if I'm missing updated information on the subject. I'm brand new to the abortion debate from the legal perspective.).

Not to mention, I think leaving it in-tact makes the procedure itself vastly different, and more complicated/dangerous/damaging, since the body isn't ready for birth during the time of the abortion.

Just my thoughts.

The vast majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks.

Not sure how the fuck you'd keep a 12 week old fetus going.

Of course. I may have been unclear about the abortion types I was referring to.

While most of the abortions that happen are considered early term, I would argue that most people, regardless of which side they're on, have issues swallowing the reality of the late term abortion. Specifically, the ones in which the baby could technically be allowed to live on its own, outside the womb.

I was just pointing out that PDS's mention of leaving the baby alive during termination of these pregnancies solves a few of the problems/fills a few of the holes in the bodily integrity argument, and would likely make a late term abortion less controversial (For lack of a better word at the moment). But I was also pointing out that leaving the baby alive during these types of abortions would cause other problems, such as an increase in health risk. Which leads me to what QG pointed out below:

Thank you for the link, I did actually learn quite a bit about abortion procedure and risks. However, I think there may have been some confusion on this link's application to my points above, or the link above was simply your indicator that the basis of my argument wasn't viable.

As far as I can tell, the procedure you linked to above requires the use of a fatal injection to the baby. I'm not completely sure if that's the case in all in-tact dilation and extraction procedures, but that appeared to be the case, based on the article. My points above, however, were based on the assumption that the baby would be in-tact and alive, meaning the abortion procedure would have to be non-lethal.

Interestingly enough, the in-tact dilation and extraction procedure appears to have no increase in health risks, contrary to what I expected. What I'm not sure of, however, is whether the fatal injection is required in order to keep the health risks low on the mother, considering she is not dilated to the extent that a normal birth would entail. I imagine that with lower levels of dilation, the baby would have an increase in health risks if it were not to receive the lethal injection. I assume, in this case, the risks would increase for the mother as well.

The procedure which extracts an intact fetus is only used in late-term abortions, which are almost universally abortions of a wanted fetus because the fetus was abnormal and unviable. While the terminology may imply that the mother is a passive recipient of this process, in reality it is usually very similar to induced labor; she experiences not only the pain of labor and delivery, but also additional pain due to the fact that the labor must essentially be forced, as her body isn't ready to give birth, and also the nightmarish emotional pain of knowing that the fetus is dead. There are many medical reasons that this process is safer for the mother than foregoing the labor and delivery through surgical removal, and there is also an important emotional reason, which is that it allows the grieving would-be parents to see and hold the dead fetus, which is often considered to help with the grief process.

I stand corrected. This was also outlined in the link QG provided, but didn't mention the fact that the pain and process of labor is still experienced by the mother (Not that that changes the argument, the decision is obviously still in the mother's court). Thanks for the clarification.

In other words, the specifics of an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor. No one else has any place making those decisions, especially including the government.

I completely agree. I wasn't contrary to this at all. I was simply pointing out how the argument to keep the baby alive (Not just intact) during termination of the pregnancy could limit some controversy, but also introduce more problems. And those problems would obviously make the rights argument even more important, as you and QG have just demonstrated.

Logged

Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

I think my problem with the way I presented my points was my vocabulary. Abortion seems to imply that the baby/fetus is terminated in all cases, not just removed. I guess the correct way of portraying my points is to replace every use of the term "abortion" in my comment preceding Roger's last with the term "prematurely induced birth." This implies that the baby would be alive, and makes my post make wayyy more sense. Sorry for the confusion.

Logged

Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

As far as I can tell, the procedure you linked to above requires the use of a fatal injection to the baby. I'm not completely sure if that's the case in all in-tact dilation and extraction procedures, but that appeared to be the case, based on the article. My points above, however, were based on the assumption that the baby would be in-tact and alive, meaning the abortion procedure would have to be non-lethal.

Interestingly enough, the in-tact dilation and extraction procedure appears to have no increase in health risks, contrary to what I expected. What I'm not sure of, however, is whether the fatal injection is required in order to keep the health risks low on the mother, considering she is not dilated to the extent that a normal birth would entail. I imagine that with lower levels of dilation, the baby would have an increase in health risks if it were not to receive the lethal injection. I assume, in this case, the risks would increase for the mother as well.

To be quite frank, it is largely because to allow the fetus to remain alive and unanesthetized through the birth would be tantamount to torturing it to death. It would be brutally inhuman to do that.

Logged

“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”

As far as I can tell, the procedure you linked to above requires the use of a fatal injection to the baby. I'm not completely sure if that's the case in all in-tact dilation and extraction procedures, but that appeared to be the case, based on the article. My points above, however, were based on the assumption that the baby would be in-tact and alive, meaning the abortion procedure would have to be non-lethal.

Interestingly enough, the in-tact dilation and extraction procedure appears to have no increase in health risks, contrary to what I expected. What I'm not sure of, however, is whether the fatal injection is required in order to keep the health risks low on the mother, considering she is not dilated to the extent that a normal birth would entail. I imagine that with lower levels of dilation, the baby would have an increase in health risks if it were not to receive the lethal injection. I assume, in this case, the risks would increase for the mother as well.

To be quite frank, it is largely because to allow the fetus to remain alive and unanesthetized through the birth would be tantamount to torturing it to death. It would be brutally inhuman to do that.

That seems obvious in hindsight. Feels like a silly point to have brought up now. Especially since the only alternative would be a C-Section, which, who the fuck would go through that to save a baby they didn't want anyways?

Thank you both for the info, I did learn quite a bit. This is why I come to you guys with unusual or misguided questions.

Logged

Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha